Pittsburgh and Parkland

Less than one week past the latest incident of domestic terrorism, a mass shooting (the definition of which does not depend upon the body count but the intention of the shooter to kill as many people as possible), the politicians trotted out their answer: armed guards for houses of worship.

The same dreary answer as the response to Parkland; to stop mass shootings, we need more people with guns.

The irony, nay the stupidity, of this response boggles the mind.

In Florida, we now have armed personnel, whose guns are discretely covered by vests, patrolling elementary schools.

Yet Parkland had an armed school police officer, one who was too cowardly to go into the building and stop the shooter.

Do our politicians want us to believe the problem was too few guns on campus? in the house of worship?

More guns, more guns, more guns. Yet the shootings continue.

In many discussions across the course of the last nine months with many persons of many political stances and diverse opinions, I have found that all agree upon two things:

No one wants to end gun ownership rights under the second amendment.

Everyone wants sensible gun laws regarding background checks, past history of mental illness, and a limitation on the firepower of weapons that civilians should have.